The BBC rolled out its new-look BBC News website redesign today amid much fanfare. It’s attracted a lot of comment, not just on the site itself but also across the media-reporting media. Taking out all the “if it ain’t broke, why fix it” remarks, of which there were very many, there still seemed to be an overwhelming thumbs down for the use of white space, the disliked Helvetica Neue typeface and problems with display and rendering in various browsers.

Steve Herrman, the editor of BBC News Online, gave a lengthy explanation to readers of all the changes brought in by the redesign but you have to dig a bit deeper to discover why the new look news service will be completely unusable for many people.

The old version of BBC News offered a low-graphics option to readers – this was not only ideal for users still using dial-up or accessing the site with a mobile phone, it was also perfect for people with visual impairments. The simple format meant it could be easily read not just by people living with near blindness but also those with other visual problems such as dyslexia.

Not any more.

To find out why, you have to follow a link in Herrman’s editorial to the FAQs on the redesign. The fifth question explains why the low-graphics version was turned off in April:

The low-graphics version was designed as a low-bandwidth alternative to the full website at a time when most users of the site were using slow dial-up connections. We are now making improvements to the site which will meet most of the needs of the people who used the low-graphics version.

Fair enough, for the most part. But the next FAQ reveals that disabled people with visual impairments have been excluded from the accessibility of the new site:

How will you ensure the site is still user-friendly for those with disabilities?

We know that people used the low-graphics version because it was simpler to read and we now offer the mobile version of the site online which provides a similarly simplified presentation.

We are also expecting to roll out a suite of accessibility tools this year. These are designed to provide much better support to a range of users – especially those with lo-vision, asperger syndrome, dyslexia, ADHD, or those who find text hard to read. For those who have been using low graphics as a more accessible version, these new tools will provide a much better service.

You can find out more about it on the Ouch! website.

Quite simply, the BBC is saying “tough” if you can’t read the site anymore, you’ll just have to wait until we fix it. There’s no mention of any deadline they are aiming for to roll out accessibility tools for the visually impaired and they seem to have forgotten that many of those now excluded will have at least as much trouble reading the site on a mobile device. They also seem to have forgotten that disabled users of the BBC are licence-fee payers and just as entitled to full access to our public-service broadcaster as all other licence-fee payers.

What I find really shocking is that accessibility was not built into the redesign from the beginning. There are globally agreed standards – WCAG 2.0 – for website accessibility that cover a huge range of issues such as “blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity and combinations of these” (source: WCAG 2.0). The standards enable disabled users to render web pages in their browser according to need, allowing for text size adjustment, customisation of contrast and so on.

The WCAG standards have been around for a long time, which rather begs the question why the BBC hasn’t applied them this time – it’s not as if they hadn’t heard of them, given they have used them in previous versions of BBC News Online.

The Disability Discrimination Act requires all businesses and services to make “reasonable adjustments” for disabled people. That’s absolutely fine when it comes to figuring out how to build a ramp for a shop that is sited in a listed building, for example. But there’s no excuse when it comes to building something from scratch. It’s sad that many companies building new premises still don’t consider physical access issues when drawing up architect plans.

It’s even sadder in a virtual environment where the rules are clear and straightforward, especially when you consider the virtual environment is one where disabled people often find it far easier to participate fully in society than they do in the built environment. And when it’s a publicly funded service that is doing the excluding, it makes me want to weep with frustration.

The BBC didn’t need to make “reasonable adjustments” – they could have been incorporated from the start. It has breached the Disability Discrimination Act in a two-fingered gesture to a significant minority of its licence-fee payers. And it expects them to just wait it out until its web team gets round to making the necessary tweaks to provide full disabled access to our national news service.

Your headline claims that the ‘BBC News redesign excludes the disabled’ but you then say that ‘the low-graphics version was turned off in April:’ The two events are unrelated. You might have only found our the news about the low-graphic site now, but that doesn’t justify your misleading headline.

Louise said,in July 19th, 2010 at 07:40

The headline is not misleading – the BBC admitted on rollout in its editors’ blog that the site is not fully accessible for the disabled and among the thousands of responses from users below that were a significant number of complaints from people with visual impairments that they now can’t use the site.

Turning off the low graphics version without offering an alternative at the time is bad enough but replacing it with a new site that should have been WCAG compliant from the start is nothing short of disgraceful.

The BBC is cavalier to the point of charging the disabled and those on low incomes the standard £12 a month for the alleged privilege of a TV license yet they’d cater sooner to middle-class iPad owners than the disabled.

Perhaps this corporate welfare, fat cat and nepotist infested cabal ought to have massive funding cuts? After all Mark Thompson doesn’t mind claiming thousands back in public-funds for his gallivanting through Africa – why on Earth should anybody fund his and other BBC personnel’s conceited extravagances and exorbitant salaries?

You may well emulate the BBC’s glorious tradition of censorship and decline to publish this comment Louise. If so you’ll be on the same plane as BBC Online’s Dave Lee; happy to support the BBC line but making pains to swerve criticism or dissent – nobly drawing paycheques but being aloof and unaccountable to those who finance the enterprise in the first place.

Reason I visited your website is because you’d blocked me on Twitter: We’ve never met or otherwise spoke and indeed I don’t think I ever tweeted at you? Your mentality saw it fit to block my account for no reason other than a personal view that happens to contrast broadly with your support of an organization. Bit immature wouldn’t you say?

Here’s the news: Many share my disgust of the BBC and we can’t be screened off forever. Start talking.

Pete, editor at dirtygarnet (dot) com

Louise said,in August 16th, 2010 at 06:01

I’m not sure why you’re sounding off at me. I don’t work for the BBC although I have done in the past. Your comments would be better directed at the corporation, especially as it’s pretty clear to anyone reading my blog that a) I’m disabled too and b) I have a history of campaigning to improve BBC services.

Whingeing to me about blocking you on Twitter (which I did because you spammed me and others on there with links to your site and I have low tolerance of being spammed) neither endears you to me nor helps your cause.

As you can see, I don’t censor comments on here. If you’d exercised patience when commenting, you’d have noticed I have active moderation in place, which means nothing gets posted until I’ve checked it. And unlike the BBC, I have a staff of 1 (me) and don’t work 24/7 so comments don’t always get published straight away.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Username (*required)

Email Address (*private)

Website (*optional)

Please Note: Comment Moderation Maybe Active So There is No Need To Resubmit Your Comments

Meta

Pages

Copyright

All content on this website is copyrighted to Louise Bolotin. If you would like to reproduce any blog post, whether in full or in part, please contact me to request permission (see Contact page). Links back to here are appreciated if you quote me or mention me. Happy reading!